According to a common interpretation, liberal egalitarianism is a broad family of conceptions of justice that share the intuition that only those distributions that are responsibility-sensitive are just. This idea is implicit in John Rawls’ conception of justice but his principles of justice generate distributions that are responsibility insensitive. Post-rawlsian liberalisms propose criteria that are more faithful to this requirement of justice than Rawls’ principles. According to this reconstruction, Rawls is wrong. This thesis claims that this interpretation is wrong because it ignores the rawlsian concept of “well-ordered society”. The analysis of this ideal reveals that any criterion of justice that aspires to regulate this kind of society should satisfy these requirements: it should be political, it should be public, and it should have a minimum content. A responsibility-sensitive criterion is not apt to meet them. This justifies Rawls’ decision to adopt principles that are responsibility-insensitive.